[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130913203149.GW13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 21:31:49 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with Linus' tree
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:25:48PM -0400, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> \>
> > It is right - for one thing, we are holding the lock on that LRU list,
> > so list_lru_del() would deadlock right there. For another, the same
> > list_lru_walk (OK, list_lru_walk_node()) will do ->nr_items decrement
> > when we return LRU_REMOVED to it, so we don't want to do it twice.
> > Plain list_del_init() is correct here.
>
> Yes. And I found the opposite bug in one place: when we are collecting
> dentries by walking the parents etc, we do *not* hold the global RCU
> lock,
??? LRU list lock, presumably?
so we cannot use the "d_lru_shrink_list()" thing after all. It's
> correct as far as the internal logic of fs/dcache.c goes, but it
> violates the global LRU list rules. So I replaced that with a
> dentry_lru_del() followed by a d_shrink_add() instead.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists